Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST "archives", was: NEW RELATION REQUEST

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 15 August 2010 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: link-relations@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B693A68A5 for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 09:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.251, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fBfzKlUyEQby for <link-relations@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 09:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CDAA43A659C for <link-relations@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 09:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2010 16:30:28 -0000
Received: from p508FE9F5.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.233.245] by mail.gmx.net (mp067) with SMTP; 15 Aug 2010 18:30:28 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19ymIouUz9y7AAUXl2aFpSKxfEsadArSLtb7cpZ4T yGz+BW0O6sfEts
Message-ID: <4C681620.601@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:30:24 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008102110390.11977@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4C67B623.7080100@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008151610080.19139@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008151610080.19139@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: link-relations@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST "archives", was: NEW RELATION REQUEST
X-BeenThere: link-relations@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <link-relations.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations>
List-Post: <mailto:link-relations@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/link-relations>, <mailto:link-relations-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:29:57 -0000

On 15.08.2010 18:11, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 10.08.2010 23:15, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>
>>> The template for this relation is in the specification as requested:
>>>
>>>      http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#rel-archives-registration
>>
>> Sorry, I missed this request because it looked like a duplicate of the
>> one for "alternate". It would probably a good idea to add the name of
>> the actual relation to the subject line.
>
> The Web Linking specification says to use "NEW RELATION REQUEST".

And I had the impression you didn't like bureaucracy :-)

It says:

>    Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD]@ietf.org mailing
>    list, marked clearly in the subject line (e.g,.  "NEW RELATION
>    REQUEST").

That doesn't mean you can't add more information. IMHO.

>> Format-wise, the same comments apply as for "alternate".
>
> Could you elaborate? The only problem I recall regarding "alternate" was
> regarding the W3C being the previously-used reference for the keyword,
> which doesn't seem relevant here since it's not a registered keyword.

Indeed. I meant to refer to the thread about which spec to link to when 
both a WhatWG and a W3C spec define it -- 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00022.html>;.

As Mark wrote in 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00022.html>;:

> This registration is a bit unusual, in that you're registering using whatwg.org URIs, when the W3C -- an organisation that the IETF recognises as producing Open Standards --- as per RFC2026 -- is producing a specification that is substantially the same.
>
> While whatwg.org isn't necessarily precluded from meeting the prerequisites of Specification Required (and therefore making registrations), we want to make sure that this isn't conflicting with ongoing W3C work.
>
> As such I've CC:ed the W3C's liaisons to the IETF for their comment.

To which Philippe replied in 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00023.html>;:

> I see no reason here why the registration cannot point to the W3C
> specification. The W3C HTML Working Group is producing the specification
> for HTML, and pointing to somewhere would undermine the current process
> and effort happening within W3C.

So optimally, the W3C and the WHATWG would come back to us with a 
recommendation what spec to cite. Extra points if it's the same for all 
relations defined in HTML5.

Best regards, Julian